Pakistan hacking Pakistan

Freedom be damned

As people from around the world work together to create a new public space on the Internet where they can freely learn, share and express, Pakistan is spending $10m in research funds to make sure its citizens do not have access to those freedoms.

In an ad last month, the ministry of information technology offered the money for a system that allows the government to read people’s conversations, ban social networks and block access to information they deem objectionable, blasphemous or compromising national security.

The citizens will not know who is reading their conversations and what purpose they will use it for; websites, blogs and businesses will be blocked for blasphemy, vulgarity or treason without trial and without explanation; and the Internet will run at a slower speed and will be more prone to failures.

In essence, the government of Pakistan is spending $10m to hack and attack its own infrastructure.

For citizens, the implications are horrifying. If the government can eavesdrop on secure communications, they will not just hear what people talk about with their wives and girlfriends. They will be able to determine political leanings, know social media passwords and secret questions, and log banking activity. People and websites may then be banned without notice and without trial for content considered objectionable by the ministry of information technology. In the past, governments have banned human rights blogs, political websites, and sites containing the word ‘shoes’. After the system has been implemented, whistleblowers revealing government corruption, minority groups seeking justice, activists organising protest movements, and commentators who do not agree with the military’s narrative on Balochistan will not be able to speak freely on the internet. Depending on who will be in government in the future, the list of citizens prone to censorship, harassment or detention will expand.

The government says it needs the system to control pornography, blasphemy and terrorism. But before it uses that excuse to implement a blanket censorship and surveillance system, it needs to answer some questions:

1) Is it viable to spend $10 million of public research money and jeopardise the entire internet infrastructure to control pornography? Is it such a huge problem? Is it possible, even with the new system, to completely block access to pornography?

2) Should information-technology bureaucrats be given the right to define blasphemy, charge people, and take action against them, without a formal trial?

3) How can an internet surveillance system stop terrorism when the state is using terrorist groups for foreign policy leverage, and the administration has failed to implement bans on sectarian and terrorist outfits?

4) Is there a guarantee that government employees will not use the system to harass, politically target, blackmail or pressure its citizens?

5) Is there a mechanism for a person, website or business charged with violating an undefined code of ethics to challenge a ban and defend themselves?

6) Is there a mechanism to hold public officials to account if they take unwarranted action against people and businesses or violate fundamental rights? Will the state cover the losses that its action may cause?

7) Most importantly, why were these questions not addressed before initiating the project?

Our legislators and public officials need to realize that they do not have the intellectual or administrative capacity to understand the implications of regulating the internet. Many of the problems our government sees in a free cyberspace do not even exist. As for the problems that do exist on the internet, our government does not have the capacity to recognize, analyze and resolve them (as seen in our cybercrime laws).

The internet is a culture. It is not a public construction project. Until our politicians and public officials understand that, it is best for them to stay away from the internet.

“Many countries have deployed web filtering and blocking systems at the Internet backbones within their countries (sic!),” the call for proposals says. What it means is that Pakistan will no longer be among countries like Sweden, Norway, or Canada that allow a free internet, but among authoritarian states like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Myanmar and China.

Like hackers and innovators in these countries, the people of Pakistan will also find new ways to access and share information that has been blocked. It will be ironic though that our goal will be to ensure that $10 million of our own research money goes wasted.

The writer is a media and culture critic and works at The Friday Times. He tweets @paagalinsaan and gets email at [email protected]